Analytical variability in the determination of anti-double-stranded DNA antibodies: the strong need of a better definition of the old and new tests

• Published in: Immunologic research 2018-06, Vol.66 (3), p.340-347
• Main Authors: Infantino, Maria, Manfredi, M., Merone, M., Grossi, V., Benucci, M., Li Gobbi, F., Bandinelli, F., Damiani, A., Soda, P.
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Allergology; Anti-DNA antibodies; Antibodies; Antibodies, Antinuclear - analysis; Antibodies, Antinuclear - immunology; Arthritis; Arthritis, Rheumatoid - diagnosis; Arthritis, Rheumatoid - immunology; Biomedical and Life Sciences; Biomedicine; Chemiluminescence; Crithidia - immunology; Deoxyribonucleic acid; Diagnostic software; Diagnostic systems; Disease control; DNA; DNA - immunology; Enzyme immunoassay; Enzymes; Fluorescent Antibody Technique - methods; Humans; Immunoassay; Immunoassay - methods; Immunoassays; Immunofluorescence; Immunoglobulins; Immunology; Inflammation; Internal Medicine; Laboratories; Luminescent Measurements - methods; Lupus Erythematosus, Systemic - diagnosis; Lupus Erythematosus, Systemic - immunology; Medical treatment; Medicine/Public Health; Multiplexing; Original Article; Patients; Reproducibility of Results; Sensitivity and Specificity; Standardization; Systemic lupus erythematosus; Variability
• ISSN: 0257-277X; 1559-0755
• DOI: 10.1007/s12026-018-8992-9

Anti-dsDNA antibodies are a heterogeneous group of antibodies, quite specific for SLE. Their variability is related to the assay used, the immunoglobulin class secondary antibody, and the dsDNA source. The standardization of measuring anti-dsDNA antibodies is still poor and different methods yield different results. Several novel technologies were developed during the last decades that represent viable alternatives to the traditional methods such as the chemiluminescent immunoassay (CIA) and multiplex flow immunoassay (MFI). Additionally, positive results for anti-dsDNA antibodies can be detected in patients with inflammatory arthritis (IA) treated with different biologics reducing its clinical specificity for SLE. Anti-dsDNA antibody levels were evaluated in 246 patient samples: 70 SLE and 176 disease control (including 96 IA during treatment with different biologics), using three enzyme immunoassays (indirect enzyme immunoassay, Bio-Rad Laboratories; chemiluminescent immunoassay, Inova Diagnostics; multiplex flow immunoassay, Bio-Rad Laboratories) and three Crithidia luciliae immunofluorescence tests (CLIFT) (Euroimmun AG, Bio-Rad Laboratories, INOVA Diagnostics). Diagnostic performances were assessed both including and excluding the IA patients. Agreements, measured by the Cohen’s Kappa between all methods, ranged from moderate to substantial (0.47–0.68). The clinical sensitivities for the anti-dsDNA antibody tests varied from 5.7% by CLIFT A up to 33.3% provided by EIA while the clinical specificities varied from 89.8% by MFI to 98.9% provided by CLIFT B and C. Newer technologies, such as MFI and CIA, showed great potential as a diagnostic application. Significant variations among anti-dsDNA antibody assays were observed confirming the lack of standardization.